About your Search

20121118
20121118
STATION
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
KNTV (NBC) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WBFF (FOX) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
WTTG 1
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
, but will the obama administration let it happen or turn an oil boom into a bust? welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot. headed into friday, fiscal cliff talks with congressional leaders, president obama gave us a hit list of his negotiations strategies, repeating his intention to immediately raise tax rates on top earners. >> when it comes to the top 2%, what i'm not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need it which would cost close to a trillion dollars and it's very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars if we're serious about deficit reduction, just by closing loopholes and deductions. the math tends not to work. >> paul: but does the president's math add up? let's ask wall street journal columnist bill mcguerin, and analyst steve moore and washington columnist kim strassel. so, kim, the president won reelection, was this the hand of magnimty reaching out to the republicans? >> it's crazy, it's what the president says all the time. if you listen to the press conference, he seems to say the biggest wish list for his liberal partisans
in distress and obama's eternalistic bravado of a top administrative official is going to come back to haunt him. she's a big girl in a big position and she should defend herself and what she said. >> i don't think it's necessarily a right wing smackdown of susan rice, it's the liberal media make it go about john mccain's comments about susan rice and john mccain never used the word filibuster. he said he would have serious issues susan rice as secretary of state. i agree with judy, what is susan rice doing representing the administration on these talk shows? she had nothing to to do with this, why is she the point person. >> it's not her fault. maybe have an administration with putting her out there, but not to say she shouldn't be secretary of state because she's somehow wrong here, but we have a fair amount of excavating to do, and on friday, peter king, i think an exclusive for fox and megyn kelly saying listen we now know that the cia, peter king knows that the cia initial chronology, benghazi's acts was altered somewhere along the way, did susan rice alter it herself, does she know who
that wasn't how the obama administration initially described it publicly. representative peter king of new york said petraeus had briefed the house intelligence committee on september 14, and he does not recall petraeus being so positive at the time that it was a terrorist attack. he thought all along that he made it clear there was terrorist involvement, king said. that was not my recollection. so senator feinstien, did petraeus contradict himself or has he contradicted the white house's version of events? >> we have a transcript of that meeting on that day. and petraeus very clearly said that it was a terrorist attack. and outlined who he thought might be involved in it. so any -- >> this is right after the attack? >> that's the day after the attack. i think there's no question about it. what has concerned me about this is really the politicization of a public statement that was put out by the entire intelligence committee, which susan rice on the 16th, who was asked to go before the people and use that statement, did. i have read every one of the five interviews she did that day. she wa
'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up these questions, but does it ego to the level of needing a special prosecutor? how far do you think this will go? >> clearly there is a movement on the republican side to keep this going. as we heard senators graham and mccain want a special investigation. we have representative mike enentire, the chairman of th
. the big difference this time, one difference this time is the position of the obama administration, which began in 2009 seeking to distance itself name usually from israel and ending its first term supporting israel which is an interesting evolution on the point of obama and in my view a hopeful one. >> there were a couple other differences. one is hamas has longer range missiles than four years ago and the middle east of 2012 is different than the middle east of 2008. we have the arab spring, egypt is no longer run by a dictator but leaders of the muslim brotherhood. what are the challenges for israel and the u.s. now? >> if you look at the whole foreign policy portfolio that obama is facing, not just the problem in gaza, but we still have the problem with pakistan, iran, egypt and libya is still not a stable situation. i think it only amplifies the problem that this is a really dangerous world, and i think part of obama's struggle in the coming months and year is going to get some hold on exactly what our policies are, what is the degree of toughness that we are going to employ because
not to go in on the ground. the big difference this time is the obama administration that began to distance itself from israel. first term supporting israel. that is an interesting evolution on obama. hopeful one. >> chris: there are other differences, too. hamas has longer range missiles. middle east is different from 2012 of the middle east of 2008. the arab spring. run by the leaders of the muslim brotherhood. what are the challenges for israel and the u.s. now? >> if you look at the foreign policy portfolio that obama is facing. we still have problem of pakistan and iran. libya is not a stable situation. it only amplifies the problem. this is a dangerous world. it will get some hold on exactly what the policies are. what is the degree of toughness that we are going to employ? that is still in doubt. they held flurry of closed door sessions with the top administration officials. best as you can tell, because they were closed door, what did we learn about the administration actions before, during and after the attack? >> there were comments about whether it was a video or terrorist attack
he are going to see happen. >>> he knew it was terrorism, he told them so. why did the obama administration change david ' talking points in the benghazi attacks i will ask a congressman when we come back before copd... i took my son fishing every year. we had a great spot, not easy to find, but worth it. but with copd making it hard to breathe, i thought those days might be over. so my doctor prescribed symbicort. it helps significantly improve my lung function starting within five minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. with symbicort, today i'm breathing better. and that means...fish on! symbicort is for copd including chronic bnchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbirt may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, d some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. with copd, i thought i'd miss our family tradition. now symbicort significantly improves my lung function, starting within 5 minutes. and that makes a difference in my breathin
, he told them so. why did the obama administration change david ' talking points in the benghazi attacks i will ask a congressman when we come back . [ applause ] >> mike: friday former cia director general david petraeus met with the senate and house intelligence committees in closed door hearings. according to new york congressman peter king, petraeus testified, under oath that he knew right way that the benghazi attacks that killed four americans were terrorism. according to king, petraeus also said, that his original talking points about islamic extremists were taken out of the administration's narrative on attacks. the question is, who made those changes and why? joining me is south carolina congressman trey gowdy. nice to have you back on the show. [ applause ] >> good to see you governor. >> mike: is there any way possible that the white house did not know that this was terrorism? now that you have her the testimony of general petraeus. >> of course not. they knew before anyone else knew that it was terrorism. why would the department of state, the cia, department of defen
it tell us about the whole approach, the light footprint that the obama administration recommended. >> chris: what would that be? i haven't heard that phrase until today. but it is in the papers. >> the idea that once we had gadhafi out in libya, we weren't going to go in with a big new presence and huge new diplomatic installation and we were going to try and do more sort of with less as it were. >> chris: not in libya... >> and that is being applied across the region as well. >> chris: it is interesting, up to this point, secretary of state clinton has kind of avoided much fire of libya. she said that she was taking responsibility for it, but that was in the middle of the night, at an interview down in south america. and she has been absent from the hearings, so far. as they focus, maybe less on the timeline and more on the question of why these diplomats were so undefended, so vulnerable, with all the warnings before hand, could secretary clinton come under fire. >> she'll have to answer questions, but i imagine what she'll say is they didn't realize how vulnerable they were and
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)